pradeep indrakanti presentation

8/6/2019 Pradeep Indrakanti Presentation

1/12

6/13/11

1

Comparative Evaluation of

Post-Combustion CO2

Capture Technologies

Methodology to Evaluate The Performance of

CO2

Separation Technologies

- Solvents & Sorbents

-Pradeep Indrakanti

16/13/11

Acknowledgments

RECS, DOE-HQ and NETL LTI

Christopher Munson, Vince Brisini, John Huston,Scott (Shiaoguo) Chen, Rick Noceti

JMEnergy Consulting John Marano

Disclaimer

Reference in this presentation to any specific commercial product, process, or service by

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute orimply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States

Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of author expressed in

this presentation are his own, do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United

States Government or any agency thereof.

26/13/11


2/12

6/13/11

2

Outline

Introduction to cost/performance analysesChallengesCostsExamples of rigorous comparative analyses

Methodology to compare the performance ofsolvents, sorbents (not across categories)

Aqueous solventsSorbents

6/13/11 3

Post-Combustion CO2

Capture

6/13/11 4

Source: DOE/NETL Advanced carbon dioxide

capture R&D program: Technology update: May

2011

INTRODUCTION EXAMPLES SOLVENTS SORBENTS Q&A


3/12

6/13/11

3

Technical Challenges

6/13/11 5

Adapted from DOE/NETLAdvanced carbon dioxide

capture R&D program:

Technology update: May

2011


Costs

Levelized Cost of Electricty (LCOE) Capital Operations & Maintenance (O&M)

Fixed, Variable Fuel

f(energy efficiency or energy penalty of the overall plant) Transportation, Storage and Monitoring (TS&M)

Goal DOE cost goal: 35% LCOE increase over a (PC) plant

without CCS @ 90% capture (same net power)

6/13/11 6



4/12

6/13/11

4

Advantages & Challenges

Solvents

Fast kinetics Good heat

integration

Experience High energy

(steam) load

Non-reactivecarrier fluid

heating

Sorbents

Fast kinetics, largecapacities

Lower heatrequirement

(solvents)

Heat requirement Heat transfer,

pressure drop

issues

Sorbent attrition6/13/11 7Source: DOE/NETL Advanced carbon dioxide capture R&D

program: Technology update: May 2011


Membranes

No steam load No chemicals Flue gas

compression

% recovery vs.recovery rate

tradeoff

Multiple stages,recycle streams

Where is this type of

analysis relevant?

6/13/11 8

PreliminaryAssessment

(solvent/processscreening or

evaluation)

PC plant simulation +Simple

CO2 capture models

Lab-, bench-scalestudies on new

solvents, sorbents,membranes

PC plant simulation +CFD CO2 capture

models (co-simulation)

Pilot plant/

Slipstream studies

Estimatesmay vary

as muchas 35%



5/12

6/13/11

5

Example of a bottom-up cost analysis(Data from NETL/DOE post-combustion capture pathway study, preliminary

results, DOE/NETL Advanced carbon dioxide capture R&D program: Technologyupdate: May 2011)

6/13/11 9

31.7

59.6 56.1 55 50.4 46.9 42.9

8

1312.3 12.2

11.210.6

9.85

8.78.3 8.6

7.67.1

8.414.2

19.618.8 18.4

16.715.1

15.4

5.65.2 5.2

54.8

4.8

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

SCPC

SCPC

,FluorE

conamin

e

SCPC,Fluor

Econam

ine,enh

anced

SCPC,M

HIKS-1

USCPC,

MHIKS

-1

Advance

dmemb

rane,shockw

avecom

pression

Advance

dadsorber,sh

ockwave

compres

sion

Efficiency,

HHV

FirstyearCOE,

$/MWh

(mills/kWh)

Capital Fixed O&M Variable O&M Fuel

TS&M COE goal %HHV

TakeawayCapital cost

Fuel costFixed O&M

SCPC:

Supercritical

pulverized

coal powerplant


Comparison of Various PC CCS

AnalysesIEAGHG Cost and Performance of CO2Capture from Power Generation, IEAWorking Paper, Finkenrath

6/13/11 10


Note correlation between increased LCOE and efficiencydecrease


6/12

6/13/11

6

Credits:The Far Side

Gallery 4

by Gary Larsen

6/13/11 11

A Simplified Case for Aqueous

Solvents

6/13/11 12

Sensibleheat

Heat of CO2desorption,

Latent heatof waterevaporation


Flue gas fromdirect-contact

cooler

Flue gas, 90%CO2 removed

Absorptioncolumn

Strippercolumn

Reboiler

CO2 tocompression

Steam

CO2 + H2O

T

Lean-richheat

exchanger

Leansolution

Richsolution


7/12

6/13/11

7

6/13/11 13

Econamine FG Plus flow

diagram

Source: Bituminous coal baseline,DOE/NETL-2010/1397


Solvents: Energy Requirement

Qrxn : Heat required to drive CO2 out of solution (break solvent-CO2 bonds, heat of mixing, heat of solution) Hrxn

Qsensible : Heating the solvent without phase change Mass of solution/kg CO2*specific heat of solution*change in temperature

Cp*TLean-Rich HX/Cw , where Cw is the solution working capacity Cw = *xsolvent*MCO2/Msolution

Qwater_evap : Amount of water evaporated/kg CO2 * Latent heat ofvaporization

pH2O/(Pstripper ovhd- pH2O)*Hvap(H2O) [ Assumed pH

2O vapor pressure ]

Electrical equivalent of thermal energy (Weqregen)

6/13/11 140.75)*)/(M/PR.T.ln(P+.Q)T

T-0.75.(1=W

2COdesseq

th

regensteam

condeq

regen

Qthregen


Electrical Energy = Electrical energy equivalent of steam used forCO2 Capture + Compression Work


8/12

6/13/11

8

Recap: Parameters Required

Solvent/solution properties Heat of reaction Hrxn, Specific heat capacity Cp, Solution working capacity Cw

(difference of rich and lean loadings, molecular weight of solution, mole fraction of solvent) Other

TLean-Rich HX, Stripper overhead pressure, temperature, Steam temperature, condenser water temperature

Caveat: Parameters are not independent of each other

Ex: Lower solvent working capacity (or higher lean loading)

lower heat exchangerT

Capex, opex increased L/G ratio

6/13/11 15


30 wt% aq. MEA (7m)

Rich solvent loading, mole CO2/mole MEA 0.484

Lean solvent loading, mole CO2/mole MEA 0.242

Net solvent loading, () mol CO2/mol MEA 0.242

Solvent Cp, kJ/(kg-K)* 3.7

Mole fraction of solvent in solution (Xsolvent)* 0.11

Molecular weight of solution (Msolution), kg/kg-mole* 22.83

Solvent working capacity, kg CO2/kg solventCw = *xsolvent*MCO2/Msolution

0.05 (0.242*0.11*44/22.83)

T (lean-rich HX), C 10

Hrxn, kJ/g-mol CO2 82

Tabsorber, C 40

Tstripper overhead, C 95

Tstripper bottom, C 120

Pstripper overhead, atm 1.8

Hvap, H2O, kJ/g-mol H2O 41

Solvents: Base Case

*: Used tocalculatesolvent

workingcapacity

16



9/12

6/13/11

9

MEA Energy Penalty

Qthregen : 3237 kJ/kg CO2 NETL bituminous coal

baseline comparison:

3556 kJ/kg CO2

Breakdown (kJ/kg CO2) Qrxn : 1864 Qsensible : 707 Qstripping :666

Energy penalty: 24% < 30% because 130 C steam

(~3 bar)

210 C: ~31% energy penalty. Electrical equivalent of work

0.248 kWh/kg CO2 Reboiler steam at 130 C (266

F)

6/13/11 17


30 wt%MEA

30% MEA,Hi T(HX)

MEA Case1

MEA Case2

MEA Case3

(rich-lean gas molar loading), mole CO2/

mole solvent0.242 0.242 0.257 0.121 0.12

Cp solvent, kJ/kg/K 3.7

-Same as base case-Xsolvent, mole solvent/mole solution 0.11

Molecular weight of solution, kg/kg-mole 22.83

Solvent Working Capacity, Cw, kg CO2/kgsolvent

0.052 0.052 0.056 0.026 0.0268

T, lean-rich HX, K 10 20 10 5 5

Hrxn, kJ/mol CO2 82 -Same as base case-

CO2 absorpt ion T, C 40

-Same as base case-Tstripper, top, C 95

Tstripper, bottom (reboiler), C 120

Overhead pressure, atm 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6

pH2O, overhead, atm 0.75 -Same as base case-

kg H2O/kg CO2

Hvap (H2O), kJ/kg H2O 41 41 41 41 41

Qrxn, kJ/kg CO2 1864 1864 1864 1864 1864

Qsensible, kJ/kg CO2 707 1415 666 707 690

Qwaterevap, kJ/kg CO2 666 666 823 823 823

Total heat consumption/stripping heat, QreboilerkJ/kg CO2

3237 3945 3353 3394 3377

Electricity equivalent of heat, WE, kJ/kg CO2 543 662 562 569 566

Compression Work, WC @75%, kJ/kg CO2 349 349 358 358 358

Total stripping+comp work, kWhe/kg CO2 0.2477 0.2807 0.2557 0.2576 0.2568

Auxiliary loads 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Total energy penalty 23.9% 26.7% 24.6% 24.8% 24.7%

6/13/11 18



10/12

6/13/11

10

Adsorbent CO2 Capture

19


Source: NETL In-House Postcombustion Sorbent-Based Carbon Dioxide Capture

Research, Pennline et al., Annual IEP Contractors Meeting, March 24, 2009

Moving Bed

CO2 adsorber

Fluegas

tostack

Flue gasto

adsorber CW

Rich

sorbent to

regenerati

on

(stripping)

Lean sorbentto adsorber

Steam In

CO2 to(compression/

recovery)

Sorbents:

Theoretical Regeneration Energy

0.75)*)/(M/PR.T.ln(P+.Q)TT-0.75.(1=W

2COdesseq

th

regensteam

condeq

regen

20

sorbent

CO2

water

}.TCp.TCp+H{O/wtCOwtH

+.TCp.TCp+H

+C)T-(TCp

=Q

adssorbdessteamdesO,H22

adssorbdesCOdes,CO

w

adsdessorb

regen

2

22

-

-


Thermal Regeneration EnergyHeating sorbent, desorbing CO2, heating CO2,

desorbing & heating water


11/12

6/13/11

11

Adsorbents: Base Case & ParameterVariations

Base Case Sorbent CO2 capacity: 1.7 g-mol

CO2/kg sorbent (7.5 wt%)

Enthalpy of CO2 desorption: 650BTU/lb CO2 (66.5 kJ/g-mol CO2)

CO2 adsorber temperature: 333K**

Desorption temperature: 378 K** Auxiliary Power: 3% of gross

power

Steam temperature: 388 K Enthalpy of water desorption: 40kJ/g-mol H2O Mass H2Odesorbed/Mass CO2 :

0.05

Parameters Varied

Enthalpy of CO2desorption: 650, 450

BTU/lb CO2 (66.5 to 46.1

kJ/g-mol CO2)

Sorbent CO2 capacity:1.7,3.0 g-mol CO2/kg

sorbent (7.5 to 13 wt%)

6/13/11 21

**: Factors in Reactor Design for Carbon Dioxide Capture with Solid, Regenerable Sorbents, Hoffman et al. and field-scale testing (ADA).

: Lowest heat of adsorption measured for diamine-silica (SBA-15) : -48 kJ/mol

Cumulative Reduction in Energy PenaltyEffects of sorbent capacity and heat of CO2 adsorption

HH2O = 40 kJ/g-mole, mass H2O/CO2 = 0.05

46.1 kJ/molCO2, 13% Cw,

-2.68%

59.4 kJ/mol

CO2, 13% Cw,-1.66%

66.7 kJ/molCO2, 13% Cw,

-1.11%

59.4 kJ/molCO2, 7.5% Cw,

-0.55%

MEA @ 3.2 GJth/T

CO2, 10 K T

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

24%

Ene

rgyPenalty%

Base: 66.5 kJ/g-mol CO2, 7.5 wt% Cw, 20.16% penalty

Enthalpy of CO2desorption

CO2Carrying Capacity

46.1kJ/mol

CO2,

13%

Cw

22



12/12

6/13/11

12

Discussion & Conclusions

Comparative Analyses LCOE = f( Capital Costs, O&M, Fuel Cost..) Fuel Cost = f(Energy Penalty, Type of Boiler..) Energy Penalty = CO2 Separation + Compression +

Auxiliary Work

Going forward Correlation between COE and energy penalty not

always positive What parameter combination results in lowest

COE?

6/13/11 23


Questions

6/13/11 24


pradeep indrakanti presentation

Documents